“Salus populi suprema lex est”
Международная общественная организация

1872 - 2018

Russian Physical Society, International

Международная общественная организация Русское Физическое Общество (сокращённо – РусФО, RusPhS) - добровольное объединение учёных, инженерно-технической интеллигенции, изобретателей, предпринимателей для совместной интеллектуальной и научно-практической деятельности в области естествознания, - науки о природе.
Научная цель: построение единой физической картины мира и поиск основной целевой функции человечества.



Stockholm, Sweden – Barbara Cannon, President,

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Carl-Henrik Heldin, Chairman, 

 The Nobel Foundation

Lars Brink, Chairman,

Nobel Committee for Physics

Moscow, Kremlin – Vladimir Putin, President of Russia 

Moscow, Tverskaya 11 – Dmitry Livanov, Minister of 

Education and Science of Russia





With regard to the award of the Nobel Prize in Physics

for 2013



The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has decided to award the Nobel Prize in Physics for 2013 to François Englert of Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium, and Peter W. Higgs of the University of Edinburgh, UK,


"for the theoretical discovery of a mechanism that contributes to our understanding of the origin of mass of subatomic particles, and which recently was confirmed through the discovery of the predicted fundamental particle, by the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider." 


Thus the prize is awarded,

1. "for the theoretical discovery of a mechanism...»


Any hypothesis about a mechanism of occurrence of a phenomenon or a process should not be recognized subjectively as a discovery without a complete objective verification of the hypothesis. Moreover, it is unacceptable to do such a way, especially, only because the fact that it (hypothesis) belongs to the persons of a selected group of the physics community, which completely disregard for other existing hypotheses independently of the fact that the given hypotheses are more adequate to reality than theirs.

In the case of the present nomination, there was such an out-of-tolerance approach; the prize was hastily awarded for the hypothesis supporting the accepted theories of the Standard model and to people developing it, i.e., who upholding the well-established conservative views in physics, without any expert analysis of the value of their hypothesis ​​as compared with other ones existed. This testifies about the lack of professionalism and is unacceptable.

Actually, there are other relevant hypotheses devoted to the "mechanism that contributes to our understanding," but for some reasons about the existence of these alternative hypotheses do not say anything, as if they do not exist at all; they are simply ignored.

It is not a scientific approach, but the method of those who privatized science, arrogated to himself the sole right to consider what is science and what is pseudoscience, where truth and where falsehood, where black is black, and where black is white [1].

Till all the existing hypotheses will not be taken into account, verified and analyzed, it is unacceptably to recognize, hastily and arbitrarily, one of them as uniquely more appropriate, as was done in this case; prematurely, frankly roughly, by boorish way, ignoring the true scientific method. The more that, in the first instance, a hypothesis must establish itself and become the basis of the theory, confirming its importance and efficiency in practice.


2. Discovery “ ... that contributes to our understanding ...”


Many, many phenomena, processes, hypothesis in physics “... contributes to our understanding...” of different things, including “the origin of mass.

Thus, according to the formula of the announced Nobel Prize, the “discovered mechanism”, in substance, does not responsible for the creation of mass of particles; it only “contributes to our understanding”.

To put it mildly, it is a very streamlined strange formulation of the "discovery". It seems that it was created by morons, which is hard to believe; so the creators are, rather, rogues, adventurers.

Indeed, in this formulation is written "OUR", that is their (a small group of people) "understanding." After all, the members of the Committee did not ask us, apparently, arrogantly believing by the default that they can do it on behalf of the most physicists expressing their opinion. Please note that this formulation allows for the interpretation of "understanding" both meanings, as valid one as well as improper, because “OUR” (their) understanding may be different and most likely wrong. It was well understood by the creators of the formula, which were not sure about the reality of the “discovery”, however, loudly announcing it over the world.

It is well known that any experience, including perhaps especially negative, i.e., right or wrong, that is "OUR" (in this case, their, as they stand alone, by a narrow circle, but not on behalf of most of the physics community), really leads ultimately to a correct understanding, by trial and error. And in this they are right, insuring themselves, thus, against the future justification for what they did now. They left the door open for a retreat in advance knowing that it is not a discovery, but a clean water bluff, taking so all of us for fools, and therefore, being confident that we will not soon realize it.


3. This “discovery of a mechanism ... recently was confirmed through the discovery of the predicted fundamental particle...”


This statement is untrue, it is far-fetched truth. Please analyze carefully the results presented by the ATLAS and CMS research groups. In addition, the need to be confirmations from other laboratories obtained from independent researches on similar systems as LHC or other. There are not such data.


4. It is assumed that in the Standard model Higgs boson is responsible for the mass of elementary particles. Its mass is estimated at about 125—126 GeV/c². Can anyone from theorists explain to a normal person in simple language how the boson is responsible for mass, at least of the electron, whose mass is several orders of magnitude less and equal to 0.510 998 928 MeV/c2?


5. Let’s agree that Higgs boson is an elementary particle responsible for the mass of all other elementary particles. The question arises. What (or what particle) is responsible for the mass of the boson itself?


A lot of other questions arises in this connection. However, there are no answers.


6. From the additional data posted on the website of the Nobel Foundation (www.nobelprize.org), we find the following expression:


«Both François Englert and Peter Higgs were young scientists when they, in 1964, independently of each other put forward a theory that rescued the Standard Model from collapse». http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2013/popular.html.


How their theory “rescued the Standard Model from collapse» is seen with the naked eye.

Since then, it took 50 years. And at last we have obtained the "salvation from collapse". As they say, a drowning man clutching at straws. But the collapse of the Standard Model is obvious; all undertaken efforts for the past 50 years have failed and could not to prevent the inevitability of the collapse.

And all attempts with the Higgs theory, “that contributes to our (i.e., their, which maybe right or maybe wrong!) understanding of the origin of mass also doomed to failure. After all, apart from the origin of mass, there is still much, much more waiting in line for their "understanding" in the Standard Model – for the salvation of the latter.

Here is a list of some of the unresolved fundamental problems, those which cannot be solved, in principle, within the framework of the Standard Model.


Modern physics, based on the Standard model, does not comprehend till now such fundamental things as: what is

     - the nature of charges,

- the origin of mass (the Higgs hypothesis does not explain this, because it only “contributes to our understanding, as announced to the whole world),

     - the nature of gravitation?

A great mystery for physicists is still:

- the physical meaning of the speed of light c in the famous formula of the rest

energy of particles,  ,

- the origin of the fine structure constant a of the observed magnitude,

- the physical meaning of the polar-azimuthal functions in Schrödinger’s equation.

Modern physics erroneously interprets the polar-azimuthal functions in Schrodinger’s equation ascribing to these functions, quite arbitrarily and unfoundedly, the physical meaning of atomic “electron orbitals” with which these functions, actually, have nothing to do [2-4]. As a result, the development of atomic physics has gone astray.

Modern physics theorists are unable, in principle, to derive theoretically:

-   the relative atomic masses of all isotopes of the elements of the Mendeleev Periodic


-   the magnetic moment of a neutron,

-   the magnetic moment of a proton;

and to build

-   a generalized theory explaining all fundamental interactions, including gravitational, from a unified standpoint, etc.

In addition to the listed above, please, pay a special attention at the derivation of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron carried out in quantum electrodynamics (QED), wherewith so proud modern theorists [1]. The matter is that the aforesaid derivation has reached in QED such an extent of absurdity (about what the general public is not informed) that it goes far beyond the bounds of common sense.

About what else is there to speak. Modern physics does not know also, from which matter and how are made the particles referred to as elementary (electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks, strings, and etc.)? Etc.


7. If only the honourable members of the Nobel Committee have considered the "understanding", recognized by them as the "discovery", along with some of the alternative "understandings" well-known from publications, well, for example – [5-7], it is clear that the result would have been different. Namely, they would have had to score the final nail in the coffin of the Standard Model.


It is at this is, apparently, the reason of the whole affair with the great game (demonstration) of making such a "discovery". The ground goes away from under their feet, and that's clinging to straws from the last efforts. Moreover, adherents of the Standard model should to justify somehow, with great fanfare, billions that were spent on the LHC ...

Please note that in the cited studies, which were started to be published relatively long time ago (beginning from 1995), the nature of the origin of mass, and not only [1], has been already revealed. Simultaneously, all the problems mentioned above, which cannot be solved in principle in the Standard model, also were solved (see, in particular, a Comparative Table of the two models in [8]). Let the honourable members of the Nobel Committee for Physics will try to prove that this is not the case. Up to now, over 20 years, there was not a single argument against these findings from physicists. Is not this is the main factor of their reality?


[1] G. P. Shpenkov, Some Words About Fundamental Problems of Physics: Constructive Analysis, LAMBERT Academic Publishing, p.116 (2012);



[2] G. P. Shpenkov, Conceptual Unfoundedness of Hybridization and the Nature of the Spherical Harmonics, HADRONIC JOURNAL, Vol. 29. No. 4, p. 455, (2006);


[3]  L. G. Kreidik and G. P. Shpenkov, Important Results of Analyzing Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS & QED-EAST, Vol. 13, SI No. 2, 23-30, (2002); http://shpenkov.janmax.com/QM-Analysis.pdf

[4] G. P. Shpenkov and L. G. Kreidik, Schrodinger's Errors of Principle, GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS, Vol. 16, No. 3, 51 - 56, (2005);


[5] L. G. Kreidik and G. P. Shpenkov, Dynamic Model of Elementary Particles and the Nature of Mass and "Electric" Charge, REVISTA CIENCIAS EXATAS E NATURAIS, Vol. 3, No 2, 157-170, (2001); http://shpenkov.janmax.com/masscharge.pdf

[6] G. P. Shpenkov, An Elucidation of the Nature of the Periodic Law, Chapter 7 in "The Mathematics of the Periodic Table", edited by Rouvray D. H. and King R. B., NOVA SCIENCE PUBLISHERS, NY, 119-160, 2006.

[7] G. P. Shpenkov, Physics and Chemistry of Carbon in the Light of Shell-Nodal Atomic Model, Chapter 12 in "Quantum Frontiers of Atoms and Molecules", edited by Putz M. V., NOVA SCIENCE PUBLISHERS, New York, 277-323, 2011;


[8] G.P. Shpenkov, A Comparison of Two Models in Physics: DM (new) and SM (used currently) (2006); http://shpenkov.janmax.com/AdvantagesDM.pdf

[9] V.A. Lebedev, Gravitation. G.P. Shpenkov, Fundamental period-quantum of the Decimal Code of the Universe. I.V. Dmitriev, About the mysteries of the structure of matter from subatomic physics to astrophysics. // Encyclopaedia of Russian Thought, Vol. 19. – Reports to the Russian Physical Society, 2013 (Collection of scientific papers, in Russian).



Vladimir Rodionov (Moscow, Russia) – The Russian Physical Society, President

Yuri Voronov (St. Petersburg, Russia) –The Russian Physical Society, Scientific Secretary

George Shpenkov (Bielsko-Biala, Poland) – Leading scientific expert, member of the Russian Physical Society, author of the Dynamic Model of the Universe

Vladimir Lebedev (Novosibirsk, Russia) - Winner of the Award of the Russian Physical Society, member of the Russian Physical Society, author of the Stock Gravity Model

Igor Dmitriev (Samara, Russia) - Scientific expert of the Russian Physical Society, member of the Academy of Medical and Technical Problems, author of the Auto-torsion Theory of the structure of matter

Moscow, October 14, 2013

« назад

Журнал "Русская Мысль", № 1-12, 2018 (30), часть физическая (ЖРФХО, Том 90)
ЖРФМ, 2017, № 1-12 (ЖРФХО, Т. 89, вып. № 4)
Журнал Русского Физико-Химического Общества, Том № 89, Выпуск № 3 (2017г.)
Журнал Русского Физико-Химического Общества, Том № 89, Выпуск № 2 (2017г.)
Журнал Русского Физико-Химического Общества, Том № 89, Выпуск № 1 (2017г.)
ЖРФМ, 2016, № 1-12 (ЖРФХО, Т. 88, вып. № 4)
Журнал Русского Физико-Химического Общества, Том № 88, Выпуск № 3 (2016г.)
Шпеньков Г.П. Динамическая модель элементарных частиц. Видео лекция
Журнал Русского Физико-Химического Общества, Том № 88, Выпуск № 2 (2016г.)
Журнал Русского Физико-Химического Общества, Том № 88, Выпуск № 1 (2016г.)
Журнал "Русская Мысль", 2016, № 1-12
Энциклопедия Русской Мысли. Том 24
Энциклопедия Русской Мысли. Том 23
Энциклопедия Русской Мысли. Том 22
Энциклопедия Русской Мысли. Том 21
Армянская секция Русского Физического Общества
Энциклопедия Русской мысли. Том 20
Энциклопедия Русской мысли. Том 19
Энциклопедия русской Мысли. Том 18
Энциклопедия русской Мысли. Том 16
Энциклопедия русской Мысли. Том 15
Энциклопедия Русской Мысли. Том 14
Энциклопедия Русской Мысли. Том XIII
Украинская секция Русского Физического Общества
Санкт-Петербургская секция Русского Физического Общества
Иркутская секция Русского Физического Общества
Новосибирская секция Русского Физического Общества
Водородное топливо Юрия Краснова
Алиев А.С. Российская астрономия. Часть 2. - 2011г.
Жигалов В.А. Уничтожение торсинных исследований в России
ЭРМ 12: Колесников И.В. Природа глобальных катаклизмов. - 2010 г.
Алиев А.С. Российская астрономия. - 2010 г.
Открытое Заявление Президента Русского Физического Общества Родионова В.Г. Президенту Российской Федерации Медведеву Д.А.
ЭРМ 11: Оше А.И. Поиск единства законов природы (Инварианты в природе и их природа). - 2010 г.
ЭРМ 10: Петракович Г.Н. Биополе без тайн. Сборник научных работ. - 2009 г.
ЭРМ 1: Гриневич Г.С. Праславянская письменность. Результаты дешифровки. Том 1. - 1993 г.
ЭРМ 6: Хачатуров Е.Н. Элиминация значительной части ДНК... - 1995 г.
ЭРМ 3: Иванов Ю.Н., Иванова Н.М. Жизнь по интуиции. - 1994 г.
ЭРМ 4: Гудзь-Марков А.В. Индоевропейская история Евразии. Происхождение славянского мира. - 1994 г.
Два открытия
Официальный доклад Аполлон-11. Лунные карты составлены безграмотно
Ральф Рене. Как NASA показало Америке Луну
НЛО: соседи по Солнцу.16.05.2011
Бутусов. Раджа Солнце. Глория. 9.01.2012
Катрен 18. Технология спаивания
Фильм С. Веретенникова "Марс как он есть"
Энциклопедия русской Мысли. Том 17
"Смерть мозга" - смерть совести!


Главный редактор Родионов В.Г.
Денежные пожертвования направлять в Сбербанк РФ на карточку № 63900240 9014875013.

Rambler's Top100